Meaningful
Health Care Reform

Streamlining administration and providing widespread insurance
coverage are necessary goals, but this article suggests that these
measures by themselves don't sufficiently address two critical
parts of the equation: 1) achieving effective means to wellness
and 2) greatly reducing the extraordinary cost of medical care.
Current proposals for reform will not achieve the improvements
in safety, effectiveness, and cost that are possible with meaningful
reform, as proposed below.

Scenario
1: A car accident sends smashed bodies to the emergency
room; a skilled staff clamps, operates, sets, and sutures its
way out of mortal chaos.

Scenario 2: A child with congenital central hypoventilation
syndrome, condemned eternally to a breathing apparatus, is returned
to normal with craniosacral therapy, a gentle healing art, which
has also reversed stroke syndromes, long-term speech deficits,
central sleep apnea, and blood pressure anomalies.

These scenarios suggest a structure for meaningful health care
reform: conventional medicine is useful for most trauma and crisis
intervention; wellness should be left to Holistic approaches,
which must have third-party support.

Mainstream
discussions about reform never question conventional medical concepts
and methods, but suggest only how to get everyone insurance and
drugs. Health statistics (the medical track record) suggest that
the conventional approach—the routine use of drugs and surgery—is
dangerous, often ultimately ineffective, expensive, complex, and
even deadly. On the other hand, cultivating wellness Holistically
is safe, effective, much cheaper, and comparatively simple.

Medical Track Record

After
a solid century of conventional medical philosophy in practice,
America's overall health is deplorable. So is that in most nations
dominated by Pharma medicine. The number of catastrophically ill
people is increasing. Infant mortality rate is shameful. Statistics
for the overall rate of illness and overall death rate from illness
are never seen, but a sense of it can be gotten from considering
that roughly four Americans die every minute from the two major
killers: heart disease and cancer—both of which are already
curable outside the mainstream (and preventable).

But the third-leading American-killing 'disease' should slap us
awake: even using 'forgiving' (very conservative) figures, it's
conventional medicine itself. An article in the Journal of
the American Medical Association Vol 284, Jul 26, 2000, following
up on a report from the Institute of Medicine, confirmed this.
Sources vary, but prescription drugs alone kill between 106,000
and 130,000 per year; hospital infections (which numbers are kept
under wraps) take around 90,000 lives, while total kills by medicine
approach 230,000 to 250,000.

Everywhere is seen political correctness about street drugs, handguns,
seat belts, drunk driving, etc.; but even taken together and including
terrorism, these don't remotely approach medical mayhem. The 'unforgiving'
figures mean that our primary source of health information and
care for over a century has easily become our number one killer—at
a cost of many hundreds of $billions in research and treatment.
This societal disease is curable and preventable.

In the Holistic view, health is essentially
balance and harmony in our internal environment. It's sound ecology—inside
the body (also ON the body, in the form of bacteria; and we must
not forget our intimate connection to the wider planetary ecology).
This basic, proven wellness principle is alien to conventional
medicine (and this major deficiency in medical philosophy deserves
serious attention). Thus, the basis for the medical track record
is disarmingly simple: diseases aren't drug deficiencies.

There
is more detail to the overall picture than discussed below, which
focuses mostly upon influences considered to be "physical."
For example, the human psyche, as well as life- and health-negative
artificial energy fields play major roles, although utlimately
result in physical effects.

Fundamentals
of Disease

As an analogy, the roots of a plant exist in a complex soil environment
that influences results above the surface. Insects attack unbalanced
plants more readily than healthy ones. An intense insect attack
is thus symptomatic of imbalance in the soil/plant, or wider,
ecology (monoculture tends to exacerbate this). The conventional
way is to poison these symptoms, worsening the imbalance signaled
by them. Similarly, medical aggression against the results, or
symptoms, of human inner ecological imbalance ignores that imbalance,
perpetuating illness. For example, if we regard germs as causes,
rather than ecological opportunists, and the killing of them as
the cure, we perpetuate susceptibility—to all forms of illness.

Science demonstrates that germs cause disease, but this dangerous
half-truth rests on a manipulation of definition. Germs produce,
or cause the body to produce, effects that are defined as diseases.
But germs don't create the preconditions that allow their proliferation.
We do! In other words, you can't grow palm trees in Alaska; and
germs simply don't like a balanced environment. In preventing
infection, ecology precedes even antibody-mediated immunity. But
we are told instead to vaccinate the kids and live in mortal fear
of the kitchen sponge, both situations involving the use of ecologically
unbalancing products.

(The
foregoing paragraph refers to organisms naturally evolved in Nature.
Strong evidence shows, however, that 'bugs' are also created in
biolabs, and that those may be more difficult to resist by the
body's inherent means.)

Another central misconception is the specific-disease doctrine
and its attendant victim mentality. Diseases are defined by sets
of symptoms (symptomologies), such as cancer or diabetes, which
medicine targets. But the routinely ignored ecological imbalances--toxicity,
nutritional deficiency, water deficiency, for example--are what
give rise to so-callled specific 'diseases.' Essentially, there
are no specific diseases, only specific imbalances.

Victim
Mentality We are also conditioned to see ourselves as
helpless victims of diseases. Whereas, symptomologies are, in
part, messages from our body's self-regulating intelligence that
an imbalance is present and needs to be corrected.

Victim mentality distracts us from the root of the problem. Taking
environmental responsibility empowers us to cultivate wellness,
which is not as complicated as we are often led to believe. Yet
even the new wave of 'complementary medicine' seems so far to
be little more than a move from the fire to the frying pan.

The Central Truth: the same common, internal
ecological imbalances underlie almost all symptomologies (so-called
specific diseases).

Which
symptomology appears depends greatly upon individual predisposition.
Symptom manipulators, such as drugs, sometimes produce impressive
effects, and may even be necessary in a crisis. But drugs usually
worsen imbalances because they are toxins (too often deadly) that
have a masking effect. It's like painting over rust. Therefore,
disheartening as the statistics are, they represent only the tip
of a mountain of disease (imbalances) hidden by a cloud of misperception.

The specific-disease doctrine also underlies the misleading idea
that medicine has conquered some diseases. Suppressing a symptomology,
even permanently, is not equivalent to establishing wellness:
other problems replace the 'solved' ones. The classic
infectious epidemics (typhus, smallpox, polio, etc.) have been
supplanted by waves of chronic degenerative symptomologies. This
is because ecology has been ignored over the decades.

Correction of Imbalance--removal of toxins, for
example--usually allows the body to withdraw the symptoms that
arose from that imbalance.

Maintaining balance prevents further illness, because the body's
innate intelligence (that which heals a cut without you thinking
about it) handles the details. Therefore, the lucrative complex
of disease descriptions, diagnostics, invasiveness, and drugs
becomes much less relevant. Safe, effective and lower-cost approaches,
proven in practice for centuries by ancient healing systems, would
end our cost-multiplying nightmare of revolving illness, which
is: You're cured--until a 'different disease' arises.

As one whose life was saved as a child by pioneering medical treatment,
I know the value of conventional medicine in crisis intervention.
Yet, medicine's flawed guiding philosophy plays a significant
role in the appearance of many crises to begin with.

Having studied Holistic health for 25 years and practiced for
15, I've concluded that, although there are many caring people
in the rank and file of medical practice, the overarching corporate/Pharma-controlled
system is not about health or caring. One example is this well-known
situation: A CBS "Inside Story" report December 2003
revealed the largest U. S. customer of Canadian pharmaceuticals:
the U. S. government. The Department of Defense and the Veterans'
Administration are just two government agencies allowed to purchase
drugs from Canada, while citizens cannot. States are beginning
to stand up to this insult. Further evidence of disdain for the
ill is the incurable-disease canard.

What Is "Incurable?" Some symptomologies
are deemed incurable, but are they? If we can't fix a watch with
a pipe wrench, is the watch 'incurable'? Generally, the challenge
is not to find a cure, but to choose from many that already exist--outside
legally monopolized convention and, ipso facto, most insurance
coverage. Among other misdirection, expensive and polluting research
(like biotech/stem cell research), looks for exotic solutions
to problems of poisoning or neglect, such as autism and diabetes.
We're spending $billions to find miracle cures for the effects
of our way of life. This is enormous waste, as well as the establishment
of economic dependence on widepsread illness.

People struggle needlessly with unpleasant symptoms. Often, loved
ones are lost unnecessarily. The hard truth is, there's far more
money in disease research and perpetual treatment, aka 'disease
management,' than in cures (game over).

Futility
and Scam of "Research" Perennial rounds of
walks, runs, and rides for multiple sclerosis, breast cancer,
et al demonstrate public good will and generosity, but also exploit
them. Research based on a faulty doctrine only thwarts success.
Therefore, just 'say no' to such campaigns. Curtailing the corporate
feeding frenzy is a major preliminary component of meaningful
reform. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. And campaigns
for research money should be separate by law from drives for local
aid. Two stories, of many, epitomize the situation, and both have
a local (Massacusetts) twist.

1)
In April, 1990, Charles A. Brusch, MD, internationally known,
respected, and loved Cambridge, MA doctor, and JFK's personal
physician, signed a legal affidavit that an herbal remedy is a
cure for cancer. He had used it in clinical research to cure thousands
of cancer cases, including his own colon cancer. The medical establishment's
response to this distinguished physician? Silence. He was ignored.

2)
In 1991, I was assistant editor of an internationally circulated
Holistic magazine. Our June cover featured Stanislaw Burzynski,
PhD, a Houston-based cancer research scientist. At Baylor College
of Medicine in 1977, with National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding,
Burzynski's highly promising, but unorthodox, work was scuttled
by NCI as he was about to go to human trials. He left Baylor,
and by mid-1990, on his own, while withstanding repeated attempts
by the medical establishment to destroy him, Burzynski completed
human 'phase-two clinical trials,' an advanced level meaning virtual
proof of efficacy and safety.

On June 27, 1991, a front-page story appeared in the Sentinel
& Enterprise (my local newspaper) about a Fitchburg, MA boy,
Cameron Gardner: "Brave youth defies odds." Around 12
years old, he had outlived medical prediction of his demise from
terminal brain cancer (astrocytoma). Thus, when Cameron was diagnosed
terminal, Burzynski was safely curing such cases in six to eight
months, with complete tissue restoration. Many patients, including
children, have daily functioning restored in six WEEKS. Treatment
is so simple and safe that most are treated outpatient.

The American Medical Association was well aware of Burzynski prior
to Cameron's diagnosis—after all, they had relentlessly
tried to destroy him. Cameron's mother told me she was not informed
by the doctors about him. By then, Cameron was too weak to go
to Houston.

Two
similar stories have more recently appeared in the paper. In Sept
'04, it reported the death of a local girl, Jennifer Talley who
died at 24 years of age of glioblastoma—another form of
brain cancer safely cured by Burzynski. In Feb '05, a story about
a 2-year-old with 'medulloblastoma' appeared. The family was not
informed of Burzynski by doctors.

Thus,
in sixteen years, nothing seems to have changed in AMA policy.
We are apparently obliged to die rather than derail the medical
money train.

Here is the primary question: Of what interest is
widespread wellness to an industry whose financial health depends
upon rampant illness? Disease is now more than a
trillion-dollar/year industry, tying America's economic health
to a sick population. Where does this fortune accumulate (while
hospital staffs are cut)? How long should we obediently tolerate
this avarice?

Getting Off the Roundabout It's possible for
most of us to get off the merry-go-round of illness and live in
essentially healthy condition until death, whereas programming
tells us we must 'die of something,' meaning a named disease.
However, a comfortable old age would seem to be much preferred.

1)A crucial interim step in state health care
reform, would be to 'unshackle' conventional doctors by means
of a statute regarding treaments approved and unapproved by
the FDA/AMA. The proposed law change below may need elaboration
and refinement of expression, and some terms may need detailed
definition; but the general idea is:

"The Board of Registration in Medicine, or other regulatory
body, may not rescind a doctor's license to practice medicine
for utilizing a modality unapproved by the FDA or AMA, as long
as there is a signed agreement between the physician and patient
or/and patient guardian, which attests to the patient's or/and
legal guardian's awareness of the approval status and particulars
of the treatment option(s).The Board may not otherwise disrupt,
or allow the disruption of, this relationship between the physician
and an informed, consenting patient."

Such
a law would allow progressive-minded doctors to expand their
ability to help patients, while allowing others to remain conventional.
It would also begin the necessary process of making wellness
management primarily Holistic, without necessarily affecting
current methods of crisis and trauma intervention.

2)
It should be a requirement of any organization that solicits
funds for medical research, and that also provides local/home
assistance with solicited funds, to offer a means for the donor
to earmark the funds for aid or research, or a percentage of
each.

It
will be instructive to note wherein $resistance to such $meaningful
health care reform will $arise.

How
the FDA Works

Consider
this statement by Herbert Ley, former FDA Commissioner, at the
1965 Edward Long US Senate hearings and reprinted in the Jan.
2, 1970 San Francisco Chronicle:

People
think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is
doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different
as night and day. First, it is providing a means whereby key
individuals on its payroll are able to obtain both power and
wealth through granting special favors to certain politically
influential groups that are the subject of its regulation.

This
activity is similar to the 'protection racket' of organized
crime: for a price, one can induce FDA administrators to provide
protection from the FDA itself.

Secondly,
as a result of political favoritism, the FDA has become a primary
factor in that formula whereby cartel-oriented companies in
the food and drug industry are able to use the police powers
of the government to harass or destroy their free-market competitors.

And
thirdly, the FDA occasionally does some genuine public good
with whatever energies it has left over after serving the vested
political and commercial interest of its first two activities.

Pretty damning stuff. It's quite safe to say that the decades-old
statement still holds true. All he omitted was noting that "free-market
competitors" include anyone who comes up with safe and effective
answers to illness of which FDA "subjects" do not have
financial control. This especially covers all degenerative symptomologies,
including heart disease, cancer and AIDSyndrome.

The terms 'alternative medicine,' 'complementary and alternative
medicine' (CAM), and 'conventional medicine,' although widely
used, don't always convey an informative impression. Some background
may help to clarify.

The term 'convention' means general agreement or consent, without
regard necessarily for validity. In late 19th century France,
a half truth was adopted by convention as the whole truth: the
germ theory of disease. This reinforced a major, crucial corollary--the
specific-disease doctrine. The latter politically displaced another
scientific view emphasizing the ecology of our body's internal
environment. That view suggested that inner ecological imbalance
underlies the symptoms, including the proliferation of germs,
that convention defines as specific diseases. It can be called
ecological medicine (ecomedicine).

The rise and dominance of conventional medicine (conmedicine)
near the turn of the last century was based mainly on a waltz
of the law with vested interest. Prior to that coup, American
medical practice was widely homeopathic--a Holistic, energy-based
approach, as opposed to the chemical one.

The question remains whether named illnesses are specific diseases
or just symptom pictures from conventionally ignored, but universal,
underlying imbalances, like toxicity and nutritional insufficiency.
However, the specific-disease mindset is pervasive. Many practitioners
in the CAM venue share this belief and will often mimic conmedicine
in a targeted "prescriptive" sense--with herbs and vitamins,
for example.

Our body's coordination of infinite physiological variables is
humbling and awe inspiring--especially when its interrelationship
with the external environment and energy fields is considered.
A supecomputer might attempt it, yet would fail. But we don't
have nearly enough information for programming anyway. There is
a certain arrogance in conmedicine, thinking it does know and
then plowing ahead. One consequence may be rampant illness.

A common principle among the various CAM disciplines is that reliance
upon the body's innate intelligence to establish wellness is preferable
(safe and effective) to being invasive and forceful (using surgery
and chemical drugs). Many CAM practitioners also share the understanding
that wellness is not achieved by aiming at symptoms.

However, something reminiscent of symptom-targeted drugs has appeared
in CAM, called 'neutraceuticals'--quite often plant isolates or
molecules found in human metabolic pathways. Kinder, gentler,
non-toxic 'drugs.' This somewhat obsessive trend can be seen as
a move from the fire to the frying pan, but not out of the heat,
of arrogance. It's a reflection within CAM of the conventional
mindset. Basic ecomedicine more simply nurtures inner/outer balance
and harmony, relying on body intelligence to handle the complexities.

A recent report reveals that cancer, our number one killer, is
now increasing at twice the rate of population in Canada: 44%
of men and 38% of women will be affected. A cancer specialist,
Dr. Dominique Belpomme, says that 70% of cancers are of environmental
origin. The Canadian Cancer Society highlights the urgency of
prevention, but only in terms of individual behaviors, as though
no outer environmental influence exists.

But the link between pollution and illness is quite clear, alarming
in fact. Between 1980 and 2000 among the same age groups in France:
50% increase in lung cancer, 100% in breast cancer, 400% in prostate
cancer.

Recognizing that a cancer tumor is not the disease, but a symptom,
ecomedicine internally detoxifies, hydrates, nourishes, and balances
energy (pH), among other things. Conmedicine attempts to cut out,
or irradiate and poison to death, the symptom of poisoning. Thus,
the "cure" evades convention, and symptoms frequently
return.

The strength of conmedicine is trauma and some crisis intervention.
The strength of CAM/ecomedicine is maintaining and restoring wellness.
A deadly error in our mainstream system is the routine application
of the methods of crisis intervention (drugs) where time-tested
wellness principles should prevail.

Many people are turning to CAM--a concern that has prompted two
major reports, one each by the CDC and Institute of Medicine (IOM).
The IOM report says folks are spending $27 billion annually--impressive,
considering that most is out-of-pocket.

A striking part of the IOM report is the suggestion of "how
much we don't know," implying that CAM is short on knowledge.
We're told that "alternative" methods don't undergo
the rigid clinical trials of conmedicine. This is misleading at
best: Quality research exists on many non-drug items. For example,
hawthorn has been extensively researched and used in Europe for
its cardiovascular benefit.

Based on existing research, large numbers of supplements should
already be acknowledged for specific benefit. The tiring suggestion
that "more research" is needed is essentially an evasion.
I have a booklet of quotes from the United States Department of
Agriculture Yearbook for 1939 ("Food and Life") about
the specific efficacy of vitamins, and the deficiency of popular
diet (too many refined foods). 1939.

Ulterior criticism notwithstanding, the Dietary Supplement Health
and Education Act is sufficient as written. Its purpose was to
increase FDA powers. Patent-hungry, greed-driven pharmas; MDs
with pharma stocks getting kickbacks from sales; and the World
Health Organization (a virtual pharma subsidiary) are most threatened
by it, and certainly pressure Congress and the FDA (which, history
shows, has often been derelict).

Ephedra is sometimes mentioned as an example of the failure of
federal law to preempt dangerous supplements. But only synthetic
ephedrine alkaloid (a pharma product) caused trouble. Ephedra
(or the herb ma huang), safely in use for centuries, was demonized
by association.

In any case, 130,000 people killed annually by medical drugs,
and (conservatively) 250,000 total killed annually suggest where
the greater danger lies, and that the proposed 'safeguards' aimed
at supplements are mainly competition beaters. Imagine the outcry
from conmedicine and industry/pharma fronts like QuackWatch.org
if CAM practitioners killed even one person a year.

The overall safety track record of CAM/ecomedicine, food supplements,
and herbs so outstrips that of conmedicine, there's no competition
(however, one should pursue understanding and use caution). And
"diseases" otherwise advertised as incurable or needing
perpetual drugging are being cured every day outside the mainstream.
It's just that, by law, no claims can be made--or you get arrested.